DivineBovine

The F@#$ing Cards are going to win another WS, aren't they. :banghead:

Funny. It seems like an easy bet to me too. I cant fathom the Bears winning by less than 5. But I was listening to the Vegas gambling expert on ESPN Chicago and he basically said stay away from this one at 4.5. Something about a florida road game coming off a big Monday night win. He said that he'd only bet the over under. This dude seems to m ow what he's talking about too. Like we were discussing past week in the NFL thread. Gambling is a tricky business. But Vegas seems to know more than we do.

Goodness gracious. Yet another "Derrick Rose is dumb" crack. Who cares? He's not dumb on the court. So the guy couldn't break xxx on his SAT. Big deal. If he's so smart on the court, why did he tear his ACL? Touché

They said treatable form, so yes? Just about any leukemia is "treatable". I'm sure he is undergoing induction chenotherapy now. There are forms that have a very poor prognosis and some with a very good prognosis in terms of long term survival. So basically saying its "treatable" means very little. Wish him the best.

Goodness gracious. Yet another "Derrick Rose is dumb" crack. Who cares? He's not dumb on the court. So the guy couldn't break xxx on his SAT. Big deal.

That sucked.

Make up call.

:lol: Packers would've done better today with the replacements.

Green Bay is in serious trouble.

The Euros can't love it when the crowd chants USA! USA! after they hit it in the water! :lol: Ooh, Snedeker just choked on 18. After that comeback.

A helmet to helmet is illegal, but I guess clocking someone with a shoulder directly to the helmet is OK.

Exactly. I totally disagree with this part. They still want to minimize risk. They make profit anyways regardless. Yes, its impossible to make the bets even because when the line moves, they honor the the line that was bet on. In other words, you bet a team +3 points on Monday, and someone gets injured and the line moves to even, you still get +3. Still, the line moves based on the action. If the smartest oddsmaker comes in at a certain line, and still thinks that line is the right one, he's still going to move the line if all the action comes in on one side to even it out. If he didn't, he'd expose himself to a ton of risk. You always here about games where Vegas gets killed or does well. That's because even by moving the lines, they are still exposing themselves to risk based on how the action came in. But all in all, they make money in the end by taking bets. Not by being invested in the outcome themselves. I completely disagree that they are trying to do much more than take bets and take their cut.

That's silly. Vegas beats the general public but that doesn't mean there aren't bettors who are better at reading games and are long term profitable. And blackjack does not give odds to the gambler unless you can count through multiple decks in an autoshuffler, which is basically impossible. You're comparing a game that is designed, mathematically, to be profitable long term to the house. There is no way that any casino game is more beatable than sports, especially now that counting is nearly impossible in the vast majority of casinos. The best odds you can find in a casino are at the craps table, and they still don't favor the player over the house long term. If they did, they wouldn't be there. Yeah, Blackjack gives no odds to the gambler unless they are counting- made impossible by continuous shuffle. I thought he meant "blackjack" paying 3 to 2 when it hits. Regardless, I don't think Sports are really beatable, unless you are a professional who does more that just look at a line and say- "that's not right. I'm betting". I understand the logic that casino lines are influenced by the action, and if you can outsmart people (who often bet on "public perception") you can potentially make money. But here are some caveats- First- The casino is taking their cut. So you have to do much better than being right 51% of the time. Second- There are professionals, who are smart gamblers, that account for much of the action. Not some stupid homer betting on his own team. They are the ones triaging all the casinos, finding the best lines, betting the middle, religiously following injury reports, doing research that you and I would never ever do. If a line is "wrong", these guys make sure it isn't "wrong" for long. This is no different than arbitrage on Wall Street. When a company agrees to acquire another for a 2 to 1 stock swap, the stocks immediately begin trading at a 2 to 1 ratio. Any deviation from 2 to 1 reflects the probability the deal falls through. So I think that betting on sports can be fun. And placing a $100 bet on a game, even more, is much better for your wallet in the long run than bringing $100 to the blackjack table. The money will last a lot longer. But to think that odds can frequently be "wrong" is just wrong. I would never bet thinking I could beat a game. It's a trap.

And anyone else sick of hearing about Ed Hochuli? I'm sick of it. Sure he's a good ref, but people make him out to be god's gift to football. Shut up about Ed Hochuli already!

So true. Underdogs win 50% of the time, Favorites win 50% of the time. Also, if you look at margin of victory, even though dogs and favorites are 50/50, the margin of victory is unpredictable. This means that favorites can cover the spread by 10 points, or dogs can win outright. So much for the teaser being a good bet. Vegas wins 100% of the time. Maybe there are professionals who are very disciplined, do a ton of research, and win consistently. But they are the minority.

The Euros are certainly better on paper, but it doesn't mean much at this point. It should be exciting. It's anyone's ballgame. The UK folks definitely care about this a ton. Probably more than Americans. To me, it's just an exhibition with some good golf. I don't care that much about who wins, but I'll watch because I'm a golf fan. It gets interesting when the 2 sides start pissing each other off- like when teams run onto the green to celebrate while another team is putting, or when there's rules disputes or gamesmanship, or teams start running their mouths. But the relationship between the players is pretty good right now- they all play in the same tournaments and know each other. So the chances of that kind of stuff happening are much lower than 10-20 years ago. But you never know.

I just watched the play in slow motion. Jennings catches the ball first and Tate has his right hand on Jennings's right forearm. As they're going down, he removes his hand from Jennings's forearm and tries to grab the ball. Jennings had control of the ball first and the whole time. Tate didn't. It seems pretty clear that the second sentence in that rule explains it. You can't have possession on a catch until you come to the ground. I'm actually pretty sure the replacement refs got this right. Well, outside of thePI. I think the key is Tate's left hand/arm. You can't see it clearly in the replay, but I think that you can argue that Tate has his left hand/arm on the ball the whole time based on the super slow mo repla. Either way, I really don't see how this is such a clear 100% call in real time. I simply don't. I can easily see a real official blowling this.

The play is being replayed over and over with every single analyst heavily weighing in on the side of the Packers. In fact, nobody with the exception of the Seahawks didn't seem to think the Packers were robbed. So count me in the minority. I just don't see how its so clear. The rule states nothing about "who has more control", or "who has it against the chest". Both these arguments have been used over and over again by the TV folks. I mean, Steve Young was using the "against the chest" argument. But I don't see anything about a "chest" in the rule. It merely states that the ball is given to the one who has possession first. To me, Golden Tate gets two hands on the ball around the same time as Jennings. Also, in the replay that is shown over and over, he seems to release his right arm for a second and put it back on the ball. However, it seems as if he has is left arm wedged in around the ball the whole time. There is no replay angle that shows his left arm isn't wrapped around the ball between Jennings arms and the ball. I'm definitely in the minority. And I'm not an NFL official, or an expert. I just don't see how this is so clear. We've all seen player catch the ball with one hand and "have possession". Also, if Jennings so clearly had possession, then why did Golden Tate still have both arms on the ball while they went to the ground, and why wasn't Jennings able to pry it out? I make no argument that Jennings didn't have "more" possession of the ball, but the rule makes no mention about who has more possession. I'd be more pissed about the blatant PI.

Gruden should be wearing a green jersey.

The most egregious thing was the missed offensive PI. However, I don't see how people are saying it was obviously a pick. The defender had more of the ball, but there's no provision about who "has more of it". If both offense and defense gets the ball, the ball goes to the offense. TOUCHDOWN! And this might just do it for the refs because there will be bitching. No PAT attempt, huh? Good thing that this doesn't impact the betting line.

Although it was a hilarious push off. But still, it is a TD.

Wait. Tie goes to offense, no? Why is it so obviously a pick?

TOUCHDOWN!! Lions and Pack both 1-2!

double ha! Are the refs reading this thread?

Ha!